You'll have to wait for the Flat Earthers to cobble together a nonsensical ad-hoc bit of gibberish to 'explain' this. There is no flat-earth model (and I use the term 'model' rather loosely here) that allows for navigation via the stars.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

You'll have to wait for the Flat Earthers to cobble together a nonsensical ad-hoc bit of gibberish to 'explain' this. There is no flat-earth model (and I use the term 'model' rather loosely here) that allows for navigation via the stars.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. If you want to whine and complain about FE, there is a forum for that.

Warned.

Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

You'll have to wait for the Flat Earthers to cobble together a nonsensical ad-hoc bit of gibberish to 'explain' this. There is no flat-earth model (and I use the term 'model' rather loosely here) that allows for navigation via the stars.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. If you want to whine and complain about FE, there is a forum for that.

Warned.

Where is the whining bit? If he had written 'There is no flat-earth model (and I use the term 'model' rather loosely here) that allows for navigation via the stars' would that have been Ok?

You'll have to wait for the Flat Earthers to cobble together a nonsensical ad-hoc bit of gibberish to 'explain' this. There is no flat-earth model (and I use the term 'model' rather loosely here) that allows for navigation via the stars.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

There is no generally agreed upon FE model. As far as I know, none of the models that do exist can pass this test.

Furthermore, I have come to understand that the creation of models in the first place is counter to the philosophy of many in the FE community. The expectation that there would be a model you could test may be a flawed expectation in the first place.

I think that's maybe what "zetetic" means. I'm starting to understand that the creation of these models is seen to perpetuate unproven (false) theories. So the correct way to proceed is to simply not make a model. I think?

Excluding the obvious distortions near the south pole, wouldn't stellar navigation work about the same on a flat Earth?

Actually no. Kind of not at all.In the northern hemisphere, the north star is at an angle above the horizon that is equal to your latitude.We can use that to tell your latitude easily at night. Use a sextant to measure the elevation to the north star and there is your latitude. From that you can tell if you are off track too far North or too far South.Presumably, you could still use the north star to tell your latitude on a FE map, but the formula would be different. It would depend on what FE model you are using. None of them match the known formula of elevation=latitude.

So I guess the literal answer to the question is, "Sure. If the Earth were flat, you could still navigate by the stars, but the stars would be in different places, and there would be different formulas you would need to use."

And of course the obvious, "But navigation by stars DOES work with the formulas and charts we already have. So that pretty much proves the Earth is a globe right there."

In the northern hemisphere, the north star is at an angle above the horizon that is equal to your latitude.We can use that to tell your latitude easily at night. Use a sextant to measure the elevation to the north star and there is your latitude. From that you can tell if you are off track too far North or too far South.Presumably, you could still use the north star to tell your latitude on a FE map, but the formula would be different.

Ok, I'm embarrassed. I knew how to determine latitude using Polaris, but didn't think that on a flat Earth it would have be quite different from what we regularly observe in reality. Thanks for pointing that out.

I am not here to convert you. I want to know enough to be able to defend the RE model.

The expectation that there would be a model you could test may be a flawed expectation in the first place.

I think that's maybe what "zetetic" means. I'm starting to understand that the creation of these models is seen to perpetuate unproven (false) theories. So the correct way to proceed is to simply not make a model. I think?

Yes. LOL. This is it exactly.

It is strange to note that, in the local wiki (aka 'fairy tales for the gullible') that they make no note or explanation of the fact that their 'theory' denies that people navigated the planet via the positions of celestial bodies consistent with a spherical earth, for centuries, maybe even millennia. Maybe it is another 'work in progress' to explain how they did that on flat earth. Even more of interest, it's ironical when you note that most self-outed FE'ers are North American, or living there. A land mass most recently re-discovered by a dyed-in-the-wool RE proponent.

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

That's not going to help. Throwing in an extra pole and further destroying the relative distances between places does not make up for the fact the surface is flat - the main problem with celestial navigation in an FE model.

So Tom, which is it, a uni-polar model or a bi-polar model? It has to be one or the other. You can't just whip out a different FE model in a attempt to answer different questions.

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

pj1

If the only way to reconcile FE and navigation by the stars is by adopting the bi-polar model, then other models will presumably be discarded by FEers? Or one could attempt to prove navigation by celestial bodies impossible (good luck, with that). Perhaps I'm missing something.

The Bi-Polar model does help somewhat. It makes it so that observers in the southern hemisphere can actually see the southern cross - which is nice.

However, it does not help at all with the problem of getting your latitude from the north star (or sigma octantis in the south). At least you can now SEE sigma octantis, but it's still in the wrong place in the sky.

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? I thought it could be a really interesting line of discussion :-,)

(I'd love to contribute myself I have no knowledge of this topic)

There is nothing to add. It simply can’t be done. Sextants use spherical coordinates and only work if the earth is a sphere. Since they have been working perfectly for centuries - it proves the earth is not flat. FE’ers won’t discuss this. Just like everything else that is irrefutable. They don’t want their delusion dissolved. Normal people can’t add much more to it than - it can’t be done, and that has already been said. You have your closure.

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? I thought it could be a really interesting line of discussion :-)

(I'd love to contribute myself I have no knowledge of this topic)

Most FEs don't really dig in to the models this far. Those few that do certainly have their own reasons for skipping this thread.

FWIW, there are a few FEs who have acknowledged that the angles don't work and cannot be made to work without bending the light. They would then simply declare that the light is obviously being bent.

I have seen 2 names given to this light bending:1) Some say the dome firmament refracts the light. You can find them shining lights through half-dome glass as a demonstration.2) Some call it Electromagnetic Acceleration or EA. This amounts to a claim that light bends for reasons that aren't known and frankly aren't important.

Either way, I figure the light bends.

To a scientist, the next step is obvious. We should map out everything we know about this bending light. We can't say what's causing it, but we can map out exactly what it's doing. I haven't done this myself. Maybe someday I'll find some time to get back to this. Mapping it out in detail would run the obvious risk of proving that it was impossible, so I don't expect any of the FEs would want to take it any further. Without their support, I don't think the effort of mapping it out would really mean very much.

One possible flat earth answer is atmospheric refraction. The atmosphere density changes base on where you are on earth which thus changes your perceived star location.

As for a possible FE explanation, being that atmosphere density varies which could cause changing perceived star location wouldn't that make star location variable thereby rendering navigation by which inaccurate?